Great! I agree. This stuff is probably the only fringe worse than the vegan Nazi stuff... and much less of a fringe, so it's probably more damaging.

Oh of course the Benatar reply is the first video being worked on after the introduction video. I guess it wouldn't hurt to get some publicity for tackling an issue really thoroughly at first before moving on, especially as you say it's so toxic.

Vegan YouTuber who lives in the South of England, makes long videos on the psychology of carnism, debates carnists online like ThatGuyT, just started doing street advocacy, talks about parenting and makes a lot of time for building the online vegan community. Not well heard of.

If he is a vegan advocate, why is he producing mini-me's rather than adopting/fostering? Has he already been criticized for this?

Not everyone has the time/will to go down that route, we can advocate for that in the positive but don't see the merit of criticizing, other than advising on economic security and how contraception plays a part in that so debunking religious claims for example.

If he is a vegan advocate, why is he producing mini-me's rather than adopting/fostering? Has he already been criticized for this?

Fostering is excellent if you have the resources, but many of these children have behavioral problems and not everybody has the time or expertise to deal with it despite the government payout.
The great thing about it, if you are able, is you can introduce dozens of young people to veganism and environmental sustainable ethics. It won't take for a lot of them, but it's a good option.

I don't recommend adoption for humans unless you have some serious genetic problem that will certainly be inherited.
Adopting children isn't like adopting pets. Not only will unadopted children not be euthanized like dogs, but dogs can also have genetic problems, or issues from their infancy, and it doesn't mean much in terms of ultimate outcome. You can also return them if they're a serious problem like biting (not quite as viable with adopted humans).
Humans grow up and become more or less socially productive based on their environment and potential. Unfortunately, most adopted children have had their potential sabotaged before they were even born by poor prenatal nutrition and often exposure to substances (alcohol, cigarettes, and other drugs, and even lead in water, and viruses like Zika), and there's not really any way to know what you're getting. This is more controversial (particularly given the confounding variables of environment) but potential may also be innately lower due to lower IQ parents being more likely to have unwanted children and have to give up their children for adoption (I'm not saying this is racial in nature; low IQ varies most from family to family, not based on "race", and perceived racial differences are very plausibly due to environment).

There are occasional exceptions, where well off parents with the mother being clean and getting good prenatal nutrition etc. end up dying or something and there's nobody to take the child, but these are rare (people in those situations usually have good family support networks too). Likewise conservatives who are against abortion and give the child up, but they're usually looking for Christian families and you wouldn't have a shot at getting one of those.

It's a harsh reality, but there's a big difference in terms of outcome for resource expenditure in spending the years and the large amount of resources to raise a child who will grow up to be an adult of maybe 85-90 IQ vs. raising your own children who will probably have 115+ IQ if you and your mate have higher IQs (average them together, that's probably more or less what you'll get) and you pay attention to stuff like prenatal nutrition and avoid drugs and alcohol and live somewhere hygienic without a bunch of diseases and where you're not going to get a lot of heavy metal exposure.
Always a chance that an adopted child will turn out just as well, and there are intelligent and high functioning people who were adopted even on the state market, but it's the exception rather than the norm. When we're talking about consequence the issue is odds and your odds are pretty bad when you're adopting from that risk pool.

If it were true that there were basically no meaningful difference between an adopted and biological child (just aesthetics) then I'd be more in agreement that adopting is superior, but as things stand (unless you're a Christian family and have access to the anti-abortion babies from rich fundamentalist kids, although I understand there's quite a waiting list there) there's a pretty big difference.